Should the proposed Porter Ranch development be approved? : AGAINST : PAUL CHIPELLO

Porter Ranch Development Co. wants to build about 3,000 residences and 7.5 million square feet of commerical space in the Porter Ranch area of Chatsworth. A citizens advisory committee helped shape the $2-billion proposal, but many nearby residents are opposed. THe issue is to be considered by a Los Angeles City Council board on June 22.

Paul Chipello, 46, is director of the PRIDE neighborhood organization. PRIDE believes the proposed amount of office and retail space is disproportionately large and would cause traffic gridlock in the northern San Fernando Valley, among other problems. A professional musician, he lives with his wife, Diana, and their two children, Jennifer, 10, and Mark, 6, near Castlebay Lane School.

Q. What’s at stake here?

A. Basically what’s at stake is whether we want this to become more like West L.A. or to stay more like the vision that people have had of Porter Ranch as a largely residential area.

That wouldn’t exclude a reasonable amount of commercial development. But I don’t think 12- to-15-story buildings are in character for the area either.

Right now, the quality of life is pretty good in the north Valley. My children walk to school. They play at Porter Ridge Park, which is on Sesnon Boulevard, right next to Aliso Canyon. It’s a very nice area for jogging, bike riding and equestrians. It’s a quiet neighborhood.

If it were developed as proposed, the biggest problems are obviously going to be crime, traffic congestion, pollution and a loss of the residential character.

Q. What would your organization like to see happen?

A. We support the District Plan for development, the one drawn up in 1974. I don’t know if it’s clear to people that we support residential development. And we support commercial development commensurate with the District Plan.

We realize that the area has been targeted for development for a long time. So the issue to us really is that the developer’s plan treats the District Plan like it no longer exists. They did not start with an existing plan and then negotiate a proposal that exceeded that. They just threw it out.

Q. What level of development would the District Plan allow?

A. The District Plan allows a maximum of about 4,200 residences, which is reasonably in keeping with the 3,000 that have been proposed. But our concern really is the level of commercial development. The environmental impact report for Porter Ranch calculates that the District Plan allows 1.3 million square feet of commercial space.

That figure is way under the 7.7 million square feet that the developer wants. That is the size of five Northridge Malls stacked one on top of the other.

Q. Wouldn’t the proposed commercial development provide jobs and housing for people who live in that area, making it possible for them not to commute as far as they do now?

A. The greatest claim of the developer and Councilman Hal Bernson for a project of this size is that they need to provide more jobs in a housing-rich area and that this would reduce traffic.

The Southern California Assn. of Governments says that right now the jobs and housing in the area seem balanced, contrary to the claims of the developer. The concept of jobs-housing balance is one of the major tools to control air quality and transportation, by, in effect, locating people closer to their places of employment.

And they say this proposal is throwing the jobs-housing ratio out of balance, because it calls for creating 3,000 dwelling units and 26,000 jobs.

So, it is not just the opinion of PRIDE, of private citizens, that they are creating too many jobs and that that is the source of the vast majority of traffic from the project. It is also the opinion of SCAG.

Q. Your group opposes the commercial portion of the Porter Ranch development proposal. But the citizens advisory committee voted 13 to 1 in favor of the proposal. Why?

A. Councilman Hal Bernson appointed the citizens advisory committee. He said it was selected very methodically to represent a cross-section of people, and he called this a citizens plan.

But I think you can probably tell from the sentiment at the public hearings that the plan is certainly not endorsed 13 to 1 by the public. Quite the opposite. Some of our members have met with him privately, and expressed that to him, and he simply denies that this is not a representative group.

We have 2,300 petition signatures opposing it and we’ve talked to thousands of people, and we know there is massive, massive public opposition to this type of development.

Q. Project proponents say the area would be better off with the project than without. How do you answer that?

A. Here is an example of that way of thinking: The EIR says that the District Plan would allow 83% less commercial development than what has been proposed. And the EIR says this reduction in commercial development would severely impact the study area street system and potentially clog the larger circulation routes, because the street improvements the developer would make, if he were allowed to build his project as planned, would not be made.

Obviously, somebody is trying very desperately to avoid the truth here. How can you have 83% less commercial development and have it make traffic worse. How can you say that the only way to get the needed traffic improvement measures is to buy this whole project? That is perhaps the fatal flaw in this whole study.

Q. What would happen to the value of your home if Porter Ranch is built as planned?

A. I’ve heard residents say it’s going to make property values decline. I’ve also heard people say, “Look at what has happened to property values on the Westside as a result of Century City.” They’ve gone up. So, I don’t really know.

Q. Do you feel the developer is dealing with the community fairly?

A. I think the project is being railroaded. They’re going through the motions. We’ve tried very hard to be reasonable and not get too emotional. But it’s hard not to get the feeling at the hearings we’ve been through that what we say is going in one ear and out the other.

Q. What would your group do if the project is approved in its present form?

A. A lot of the constituency is yelling for a recall of Bernson. We are trying not to be impulsive about that. But they feel disenfranchised. We’ve not suggested that. They’re yelling at us: ‘Why haven’t you started a recall?’ We’re still trying to work within the system.

Q. What motivates you to be out front on this issue?

A. Simply that we really love the area and are really trying to preserve some of the character of it. Growth and change are inevitable, but we don’t think it has to be this extreme.